DeepMark

Update Mark Scheme

markScheme_update

Idempotent

Update an existing mark scheme by its ID

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The unique identifier for the mark scheme to update
`content`	No	The full mark scheme content text (level descriptors, caps, guidance, etc.)
`mark_points`	No	Array of mark points
`points_total`	No	The question's total marks. Stored on the question — a mark scheme is always out of its question's total.
`marking_method`	No	How to mark: deterministic (MCQ), point_based, or level_of_response

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`updated`	Yes	Names of the fields written by this call.
`question_id`	Yes
`points_total`	Yes	The question's total marks after the update.
`mark_scheme_id`	Yes
`mark_point_count`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 2, 2026
- removedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 22, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 20, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / points_total / description

Previous value: -"Total number of points for the mark scheme"New value: +"The question's total marks. Stored on the question — a mark scheme is always out of its question's total."

addedOutput schema / properties / points_total / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

addedOutput schema / properties / points_total / description

Added value: +"The question's total marks after the update."

removedOutput schema / properties / points_total / type
```
Removed value: -"number"
```

First observedJul 22, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutation, and the description adds only that it updates an existing record by ID. It does not disclose important behavioral details such as whether unspecified fields are preserved, whether content or mark_points are replaced wholesale, or any permission requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity leaves no room for structural guidance on the more complex mark scheme fields.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has a fully documented schema, annotations covering its safety profile, and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, for a five-parameter mutation involving nested mark points, it remains thin on update semantics and is only minimally sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all five parameters in detail. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: update an existing mark scheme by ID. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the related question_update sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies that a valid existing ID is required, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or what kinds of updates are appropriate. It is essentially a restatement of the action without usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All DeepMark tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?